Contact your Parish Council
Appendix A - Scrutiny – Key Findings from the Governance Review
Interviews:
Interview |
Summary |
Improvements to Scrutiny |
Cabinet Members |
· Pre-decision scrutiny is not being used effectively; · There is a natural defensiveness over call-in, members cannot impact decisions effectively with call-in; · Scrutiny has done it’s job and is now stale, as a result there is a lack of interest in scrutiny; · The principles of scrutiny as a system of checks and balances is good, but it is not being used effectively; · The value of cross-party input is before the decision is made through pre-decision scrutiny, not once the decision has been made through call-in; · Members need to have a clearer understanding of the role of scrutiny in order to really use it effectively; · Scrutiny is being misused too often to score political points, and being overshadowed by political agenda;
|
· Effective pre-scrutiny can be used to better engage members · Programme of training to educate members on the role of scrutiny and the tools available for members to influence decisions · Members need to be proactive – it is up to members to add key decisions to the agenda not the Cabinet member; · Cross party collaboration between Cabinet and Scrutiny would provide better value to the decision makers - but is it for Cabinet to lead the scrutiny agenda? · Have one committee to scrutinise cabinet decisions and one committee to provide the overview; · Scrutiny is member driven should be proactive, rethink the format of meetings, bring back Officers and external people; |
Members |
· Too much focus on scrutiny and not enough overview; · Scrutiny chairman are not being held to account – they need to have a clear understanding of their role; · Pre-scrutiny meetings hold too much influence members are ‘dragged’ along and therefore challenge is difficult; · Scrutiny reports have not impact, as a result members feel as though they have not been involved or had any influence over decision making; |
· There should be a more proactive and effective use of pre-decision scrutiny and should not be Cabinet led; · Chairmanship should not be the same as the administration; · Quality of chairmanship should be improved; · Better programmed training for new members to provide better induction and better continuous professional development; · There needs to be improved training over the role of scrutiny; |
Senior Officers |
· Pre-decision scrutiny is the most effective way to influence decision making and it is not being used effectively; · Scrutiny is not having the right impact – decisions are not being influenced / changed; |
· Improve the appetite for pre-decision scrutiny to allow the Committee to actually influence decisions – and choose the right decisions; · Reduce to one scrutiny committee – with support from individual working groups – to allow adequate overview and scrutiny; · Re-consider the format of meetings, and adopt more innovate and flexible Officer reports and interviews; · Reduce scrutiny from 3 committees to one; · Improve collaboration between Cabinet and scrutiny · Improve the accountability of scrutiny recommendations and implement a system to capture and recommendations and report on the actions taken; · Improve the understanding and quality of the chairmanship; · Members should be proactive to be involved in decision before they are made;
|
Member Survey
Question |
Thinking about the present Cabinet and Leader System what do you like and/or dislike? |
How could the present system be improved |
Key Points |
Liked: · Speed of decision making · Ability to be decisive · Allows clear strategic direction · Efficiency of decision making Dislike: · Lack of transparency · Not enough members involved in decision making · Undemocratic · Disempowerment of ward councillors and their residents
|
Greater pre-decision involvement More input from Members More use of the scrutiny system Better forward planning of decision making More consultation
|
From the Member workshop
Feedback on the systems of governance:
· Cllr Paine – Being a Cabinet member can be isolating – a hybrid system would improve member involvement;
· The current system allows for quick/snap decisions (that need to be made quickly) to be made;
· Cllr Ash – The speed of the cabinet process can result in decisions being made to quickly without effective challenge;
· Group discussion – Weakness of the current system is that not enough members are or feel like they are involved;
· Members lack sufficient knowledge and expertise – “jack of all trades but master of none”;
· Too much focus on scrutiny, and not enough overview – reports and recommendations are not revisited;
· The committee system led to more decision being made a full Council;
· The Council needs to make the right decision, not a financial decision;
· The system must not eliminate the overview side of the decision process (such as research). Would this be lost in a Committee system?
Accountability:
· Perception that Cabinet members are not being held to account;
· Scrutiny chairmen are not being held to account
· Cllr Paine: In a committee system would you get a decision made? And would there be clear accountability of that decision?